Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TULedHead

The Next President of the USA will be?

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

I would like the record show that i was answering the question on who will win based on strategy and all hermit did was ask for another six pack.

SHUTUP.jpg

Yes America can elect a president who happens to be black. But obama has proved that he wants to be the first black president. Now America can look past his need to let everybody know that he is black, but they can't look past his liberal agenda and his ties to radicals like Rev. Wright, and Father Pfleger, whom he both called spiritual adviser. His ties to Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers.

So once again, Hitler was a great speaker with a great vision for Germany, the problem Hitler had was his agenda. Hitler wanted great things for Germany, but he blamed a certain group of people for the troubles of Germany. Since Obama best buddy's in the world has blamed white people for the problems of America, I really see no difference. Obamas agenda of Liberal America will changed America, but is it the change that is right.

Tell me, how will third term abortions, gay marriages, higher taxes, loony envrio concerns, and willing to sit in the backseat of a car with rouge leaders and have a make out session would improve America. How will that lower gas prices, lower food prices, make people read their loan agreements, keep jobs from leaving America, and make sure 9/11 will not happen again.

Obama gave speech at AIPAC and said there is no greater threat to Israel, than Iran. Would the Senator from Illinois like to explain how removing the greatest force on this earth, the United States Military, will protect Israel, even though the only thing that is stopping Iran to take over Iraq and Israel, so happens to be the United States Military. Obama is against dumb wars, but he is not against dumb decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take out Watergate (which may be overexeggerated nowadays I think) and he was all right.

Take out Watergate? It's pretty impossible...You think it's over-exaggerated that Nixon was a crook? Paid for guys to break into the Democratic Campaign headquarters then tried to cover it up?

Well okay, if we take out Watergate, what have we got?

Detente with the USSR and China, all over-seen and organised by Henry Kissinger...

You had a US currency crisis because of the Vietnam War, the rapidly expanding US Budget deficit and Nixon's depleting Gold Reserves, which, along with Yom Kippur in 1973 and the resulting oil crisis, drove America into a deep recession by the mid to late 70's... Which was blamed on Jimmy Carter, when in fact it was the fiscal policy of Nixon that caused it. Nixon defaulted on the Bretton Woods agreement which made the US Dollar the global currecny reserve, as all foreign currencies were converted into US dollars which were then convertible into gold.

"As a consequence of Nixon’s move, the US dollar declined against most currencies over the following decade, and declined 95% against gold as the price of gold shot up from *$35 per ounce to a high of $850 per ounce in 1981. The situation finally stabilized when the US Federal Reserve raised interest rates to 18%, halting further declines in the dollar and triggering a 20-year bear market in gold."

"Without the fiscal restraints inherent in a gold-backed currency, politicians worldwide were able to promise social programs and expand government bureaucracies that could be delivered through borrowing money created by the central banks rather than through direct taxation. They could embark on military campaigns with borrowed dollars that future generations would have to repay. And borrow they did, particularly in the US. In 1971 the total US federal debt stood at $436 billion. Today, that number exceeds $8 trillion. The 2005 increase in the federal debt of $571 billion was more than the total debt in 1971. Worse still, when calculated in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and taking unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations into account, the total federal debt is actually $49.4 trillion. This equates to more than $160,000 for every American"

Yep...thanks Richard Nixon!

What a great President you were...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't know Nixon was running again. I doubt he will be the next president of the USA either way.

Seriously....let the bastard rot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no Nixon fan but he had little choice in defaulting on Bretton Woods.

"At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944 the world was again temporarily on something resembling the gold standard. All the world’s major currencies were fixed to the dollar, and the dollar was fixed to gold. An ounce of gold was supposed to be worth $35 forever after. The U.S. central bank then proceeded again to print too much money. Throughout the 1960s various European central banks, particularly the French, redeemed their dollars for gold. The United States had too little gold to meet the demand, so in August 1971 President Richard Nixon suspended convertibility of the dollar and defaulted on the Bretton Woods agreement. The gold standard was abandoned, and currencies soon floated against each other."

source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes America can elect a president who happens to be black. But obama has proved that he wants to be the first black president. Now America can look past his need to let everybody know that he is black, but they can't look past his liberal agenda and his ties to radicals like Rev. Wright, and Father Pfleger, whom he both called spiritual adviser. His ties to Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers.

:coffee:

Wright, Pflegler, Rezko, and Ayers might be "issues" that you can't look past, but to democrats and anyone else with a halfway rational mind (ie, most moderates and independents), they're non-issues. If you hope to derail the Obama campaign, you'll have to come up with far more substantive issues than those. Those old dogs simply aint huntin' no more. ;)

If you wanna persist with issues pertaining to guilt by association, you'll have to find a way to explain away McCain's involvement in the Keating Five; his involvement with lobbyists who lobby for Iranian, Chinese, and Burmese Junta interests; and his involvement with lobbyists who lobbied for UBS. Google these McCain campaign associated names and see what you find: Charlie Black, Tom Loeffler, Peter Madigan, Doug Goodyear, Doug Davenport, and Phil Gramm.

McCain lobbyist Connections

McCain lobbyist connections to dictators

When a UBS lobbyist wrote McCain’s housing policy

The Lobbyist McCaim Won't Fire

You'll also have to find a way to explain away McCain's role in covering up the Jack Abramoff scandal. You know who Jack Abramoff is, don't you? Yeah, thats right,.. he's a former lobbyist, now convicted felon serving time in federal prison.

:whistling:

So once again, Hitler was a great speaker with a great vision for Germany, the problem Hitler had was his agenda. Hitler wanted great things for Germany, but he blamed a certain group of people for the troubles of Germany. Since Obama best buddy's in the world has blamed white people for the problems of America, I really see no difference. Obamas agenda of Liberal America will changed America, but is it the change that is right.

Tell me, how will third term abortions, gay marriages, higher taxes, loony envrio concerns, and willing to sit in the backseat of a car with rouge leaders and have a make out session would improve America. How will that lower gas prices, lower food prices, make people read their loan agreements, keep jobs from leaving America, and make sure 9/11 will not happen again.

Obama gave speech at AIPAC and said there is no greater threat to Israel, than Iran. Would the Senator from Illinois like to explain how removing the greatest force on this earth, the United States Military, will protect Israel, even though the only thing that is stopping Iran to take over Iraq and Israel, so happens to be the United States Military. Obama is against dumb wars, but he is not against dumb decisions.

First of all, if you've been paying attention, you'd realize that Iran has been the primary beneficiary of George Bush's misguided invasion of Iraq. You do realize that, don't you?

Secondly, McCain is not going to beat Obama in November, and certainly not based on some silly caricature of Obama like the one you've presented here. The majority of the American people are smarter than to buy into that drivel. I understand that you don't like Barack Obama, but can't you at least make reality-based points upon which to claim Obama is not a better candidate than McCain? :rolleyes:

Brent Scowcroft Echoes Obama: We Need To Talk To Enemies

April 28, 2008 -

Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, said on Monday that he agrees with the position, stated mainly by Sen. Barack Obama, that the U.S. would benefit from having direct talks with the leaders of its most distrusted adversaries.

"Absolutely," said Scowcroft, when asked by The Huffington Post whether he thought the next president should meet with the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "It's hard to make things better if you don't talk."

Scowcroft, a former Air Force general who is widely considered to be one of the preeminent foreign policy minds in the United States, was appearing at an event with Henry Kissinger at Georgetown University. His take on U.S. diplomatic outreach comes as Obama's position -- to meet with our enemies even without preconditions -- has gotten the Illinois Democrat routinely criticized as naive and inexperienced from his Democratic and Republican rivals. Scowcroft declined, when asked, to directly assess the foreign policy platform of any of the presidential candidates.

With all due respect, Pb Derigable, I think Brent Scowcroft's assessment of Obama's diplomatic approach of dealing with America's enemies carries a bit more weight than your silly "willing to sit in the backseat of a car with rouge leaders and have a make out session" caricature. ;)

And btw,.. while you might think it was Barack Obama who said this about Iran: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us", you might be surprised to learn that it was in fact George Bush's current Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, who said it.. last month. [Washington Post, Thursday, May 15, 2008]

:beer:

As our allies pull out of Iraq ahead of us, they are acknowledging the reality that the Bush regime and John McCain (and their self-deluding supporters) are unwilling to acknowledge:

Going to war with Iraq was wrong, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd admits

02/06/2008

All the arguments Australia marshalled to justify sending troops to fight in Iraq proved to be wrong, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said today, as the country's 550 combat soldiers headed home.

In an admission that will make uncomfortable reading in London and Washington, the Labour leader dismissed one-by-one the reasons used by his predecessor, John Howard, to join the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq five years ago.

"Have further terrorist attacks been prevented? No, they have not been, as the victims of the Madrid train bombing will attest," Mr Rudd told parliament.

"Has any evidence of a link between weapons of mass destruction and the former Iraqi regime and terrorists been found? No.

"Have the actions of rogue states like Iran been moderated? No ... Iran's nuclear ambitions remain a fundamental challenge.

"After five years, has the humanitarian crisis in Iraq been removed? No it has not."

John McCain is on the wrong side of every major issue in this political campaign.

Barack Obama is on the right [ie, correct; winning] side of every major issue. B)

:beer:

Edited by Dragon of Darkness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

...........:yay:Obama wins the dem nomination!! :yay:

...........Otrain.jpg

:banana: The O-Train keeps a rolling along.. full speed ahead!! :banana:

Obama '08!! :cheer:

:beer:

Hi :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ Hello, new member - don't we know you from somewhere ..? :huh:

Oh boy, the nobama spin machine is back :rolleyes:

Didn't he get banned for approaching underage girls or something?

I forgot;

nobama.jpg

Edited by Uncle Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the fuck can you say that. We don't yet know the consequences of both candidates actions. You say if McCain stays American military lives will be lost, I say if Obama stays, American Civilians lives will be lost. So who is really right, both will happen, but what is more important. We don't know. It's not about who is right or wrong on this election. I'm looking at this as a game. It's what you can prove to the American people. McCain the same is ungodly untrue, but if you say enough, Americans will believe it. Now, does the radical ties gonna matter to Obama presidency, No,( it does call into his ability to make right decisions on people ) but it's the same deal, if you say it enough, America will believe it. You say America is smart enough to know better, but according to you they fell for Iraq and a Bush 2nd term.

You put up the quote form Gates, but what you are missing is that he said we need leverage first before we can talk to them. He said we can't be the demander, thats right, we will offer them the opportunity to see the next day if they quit their bullshit and they may get their sanctions lifted to. Obama wants a face to face sit down, with out preconditions. Why would Iran or anybody else will listen to us if we are not willing to back it up. and do you know what, 150,000 U.S. military personal on the boarder of any nation, is definitely leverage. but Obama doesn't want that.

You said that Obama radical ties are non-issues to Democrats, yes thats true, because they are fucking democrats. Why do you think most Republicans support winning this war, because they're fucking republicans. Half of your so called Democrats voted for the candidate without the radical ties, and polling suggest, that was a big part of him limping across the finishing line.

Hermit i don't care which candidate supports, but you are not looking at this objectively. Saying Obama is right on every issue, saying he will win no matter what, and saying he is god gift to the American people and John McCain is just old is being a fucking cheerleader. We know John McCain has a bad past, but Obama has a bad present. We know who John McCain is, Bush 3rd term, typical politician. But we don't know yet who is obama yet besides the speeches, Obama is not going to look any better tomorrow than he will look today, all politicians are bad. Is a 6 point lead large enough for a candidate, whom can only go down, over a candidate, whom can only go up since we know who John McCain is. We know who Hillary was, and Obama was just a dream and he got out to a lead, than we started to find out who Obama is and we started to see those cracks.

It's not about what fair or what's the truth. It's about what can you make the American people believe in, and thats politics.

The swift boats may not been a true tale of John Kerry, but it's doesn't matter, we convinced the American people that John Kerry was more of a douche than Bush. Who can convice the american people who is the bigger douche bag. McCain, or Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh boy, the nobama spin machine is back :rolleyes:

Didn't he get banned for approaching underage girls or something?

I forgot;

nobama.jpg

No he got banned because he thought he was right on a issue. The mods proved him wrong. Just like how he thinks obama is right, well he is Wright, and America may prove him wrong by voting right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't he get banned for approaching underage girls or something?

If you're going to insinuate that, at least get the person's name right. That was Joel, not Hermit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're going to insinuate that, at least get the person's name right. That was Joel, not Hermit.

I wasn't insinuating anything, someone told me that. <shrugs> If you are correct, my question still stands "didn't he get banned for approaching underage girls or something?"

Edited by Uncle Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't insinuating anything, someone told me that. <shrugs> If you are correct, my question still stands "didn't he get banned for... or something?"

Tell us, Uncle Bill,.. WHO told you that?

[why do I have the feeling you suddenly won't remember? :rolleyes:]

If you're going to insinuate that, at least get the person's name right. That was Joel, not Hermit.

Thank you for setting the record straight on that, Liz. :beer:

Btw,.. isn't Uncle Bill the guy who likes to have sex with barnyard animals..

..or underage boys..

..or something?

:blink:

I'm not insinuating anything,.. someone told me that. huh.gif

[:rolleyes:]

No he got banned because he thought he was right on a issue. The mods proved him wrong. Just like how he thinks obama is right, well he is Wright, and America may prove him wrong by voting right.

To set the record straight, although I'd broken no forum rules, I got banned because a mod incorrectly thought I'd restarted a thread that he'd deleted the night before (when in fact, I'd started a new thread topic) and he didn't appreciate my response to his threatening me in a PM, which I hadn't appreciated.

For those who don't recall the two thread topics being referred to: the first thread topic was about "gay marriage" (a discussion about the fact that California had just lifted its ban on gay marriage); and the second thread topic was about the "intolerance of intolerance" (a discussion about how many people who condemn intolerance are themselves quite intolerant of the opinions and points of view of people who express opinions different than their own).

After deleting the second thread the mod sent me a PM in which he rudely and incorrectly admonished me for "restarting a thread that had just been deleted"; he concluded his PM with the threat "Final warning". I corrected him in my response PM. I pointed out how the second thread had been a different topic, and I suggested that if he'd read the second thread he surely would have realized that it was a different topic than the first thread. I concluded my PM by saying "And btw, save your 'final warning' threat for the kids who might be impressed by it; I'm not". I few minutes later, I was banned.

I'd broken no forums rules or guidelines, so as far as I can tell I was banned for not being sufficiently intimidated by the mod's threat.. or perhaps for being slightly sarcastic in response to having been threatened by the mod.. or maybe simply for being right about the two thread topics being different. Maybe the mod felt it was easier to ban me than to admit he'd made a mistake (in assuming I'd restarted a thread he'd just deleted) and apologize for it. I don't know.

What I do know is that I did not restart a thread that had just been deleted; I broke no forum rules or guidelines; and my response to having been unnecessarily threatened by a mod was, at the very worst, slightly sarcastic. Did I deserve to be banned for that? Now you know the facts; decide for yourself.

I've received no responses to emails trying to resolve this matter privately with the forum admin, and I'll probably be banned again for publicly setting the record straight here. Oh well. At least now you (those who see this post before it gets deleted, anyway) know what actually happened.

cheers, friends. :beer:

:hippy:

jamriot.jpg

B)

Edited by Hermit_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´m waiting for the day, when the skin colour doesn´t matter any more. When I see Obama on TV, for me it´s a person who wants to become president, not an black man(what he is, of course) who wants to become president. The only thing that should decide about somebody becoming president should be someone´s qualities as a politician; not someons skin colour or gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I´m waiting for the day, when the skin colour doesn´t matter any more. When I see Obama on TV, for me it´s a person who wants to become president, not an black man(what he is, of course) who wants to become president. The only thing that should decide about somebody becoming president should be someone´s qualities as a politician; not someons skin colour or gender.

my history teacher and i were talking about the significance of this election with a black man and a woman being closer to the presidency then ever before... and he reminded me

"This election will be significant news, when its not significant."

ill be happy to see when we dont have to apply black, white, yellow, green, man woman, it and all those adjectives to who we elect...

its not happening any time soon, and I'll doubt ill see it in my life tme, but this is a step in the right direction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it´s a person who wants to become president, not an black man(what he is, of course) who wants to become president.

That myth died with the revelations about trinity church, now he is "the black candidate".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ Hello, new member - don't we know you from somewhere ..? :huh:

63419514.jpg

Gotta hand it to him he's persistent :rolleyes:d0e06147.gif

Monty_Python_2__limbless_Black_Knig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We know who John McCain is, Bush 3rd term, typical politician.

You're a McCain supporter and that's the campaign slogan you came up with? :blink:

By golly,.. I think that's a dandy! :thumbsup:

McSame.jpg

:cheer:

btw, Pb,.. since you've now unequivocally proclaimed that you know "John McCain is Bush 3rd term", I take it you'll have no further objections between now and November to him being referred to as "McSame" or "More Of The Same McCain" or "McBush",.. right? ;)

:beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least now you (those who see this post before it gets deleted, anyway) know what actually happened.

cheers, friends. :beer:

:hippy:

B)

Welcome back, Hermit. :beer:

I've missed your posts. Back to the election: Do you have any thoughts on who might be the best running mate for Obama? Both Dylan Loewe and Peggy Noonan have mentioned Jim Webb. I'd be interested in hearing your insights on this suggestion.

I hope you'll be with us through November.

:hippy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Welcome back, Hermit. :beer: I've missed your posts.

Thanks, MSG. :beer:

Back to the election: Do you have any thoughts on who might be the best running mate for Obama? Both Dylan Loewe and Peggy Noonan have mentioned Jim Webb. I'd be interested in hearing your insights on this suggestion.

I hope you'll be with us through November.

:hippy:

I like Jim Webb a lot, and I think he'd be an excellent VP. He'd bring undeniable military bona-fides (military experience, reputation, and respect; ie, military cred) to the ticket. He's smart; he's passionate; and he's progressive but not so much that he could be labeled an extremist or a radical. His achilles heel could be the positions he's expressed in the past about women's roles in the military. That might not sit well with Hilary supporters who Obama is trying to bring on board the O-train. I don't think there's any validity to the criticisms of Webb in this regard (not when you consider his positions in context of the times in which they were made), and personally I think he'd a great VP.

Wesley Clark would be a solid choice given his military credentials and his connections with the Clinton campaign. I also like Bill Richardson as a possible running mate with Obama. He has bona-fide foreign relations credentials; and he'd help bring New Mexico and other southwestern, Latin-populated states to Obama (if he's not tapped to be VP, I think Richardson will likely end up being Obama's Secretary of State). I think Kathleen Sebelius would be an excellent VP too; she'd certainly bring in the women votes from Hilary's camp, but I'm a little concerned that an African American presidential candidate and a woman VP candidate on the same ticket may end up being too much change at one time for the majority of Americans to feel comfortable with. If she is tapped for the job I'd personally fully support her as the choice though.

I think Hilary won't get the nod for the same reason I don't think Sebelius will get the nod and because Hilary as VP would, I think, result in a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation.. especially when you add Bill to the mix. I think Hilary is going to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, and her name will probably go into the title (or subtitle) of the universal health care act that gets enacted into law during Obama's presidency. ;)

[btw,.. Hilary just publicly threw her full support behind Barack Obama and she

unequivocally encouraged her supporters to support Obama. Good going, Hilary!! :thumbsup::beer: ]

John Kerry is not out of the question as a poss Obama running mate; nor Chris Dodd, nor Joe Biden (though Biden will probably end up being Sec of Defense). John Edwards has said he's not interested in being VP, which is fine because once he's elected I think Obama will nominate Edwards to be AG.

Obama has many excellent people to choose form. Aside from assessing the personal qualifications of his possible ticket mates and considering how well they'll serve in the role of VP, Obama also has to consider how they can help him win the general election. I think he'll end up picking a running mate that all democrats (and just enough independents and disaffected-moderate-repubs) will be able to enthusiastically support. ;)

Heck,.. who knows.. maybe Obama will cross party lines and tap anti-Iraq war

republican.. and frequent burr under Bush's saddle.. Chuck Hagel to be his VP? :whistling:

What are your thoughts about Obama's VP options, MSG?

:hippy:

Edited by Hermit_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...